Answer TWO of the following 4 questions. Each question carries equal marks.

Answer TWO of the following 4 questions. Each question carries equal marks.
QUESTION 1

Tina and Martin are both employed in the personnel department of Financial Services Ltd as personnel assistants. They both started working for the company at the same time but after five years Martin is paid more than Tina even though they work for the same number of hours. Also Martin receives more days holiday per year than Tina. Tina is arguing that she should receive the same pay and holiday as Martin.

Susan is employed in the secretarial department. She has discovered that her pay (and that of other secretarial staff) is about half of that received by staff in the marketing department, all of whose members are male. She has complained that this difference in pay amounts to sex discrimination and that she should be paid the same salary as the marketing staff.

Rachel works part-time in the personnel department. Most of the staff employed part-time in the department are female. Rachel has complained that part-time staff are excluded from the company’s sick pay and occupational pension schemes. She complained about this but was told that it was too costly and therefore not financially viable to include part time staff in the schemes. Rachel is arguing that this exclusion amounts to sex discrimination.

Rita and Tom both applied for a job in the sales department. They were both equally qualified and experienced but the job was offered to Tom. Rita was told “the sales job requires long hours and a lot of stamina, we do not think it is a job for a woman”.
Rita is arguing that she has been a victim of sex discrimination.

Advise Tina, Susan, Rachel and Rita on the basis whereby EU law on sex discrimination (Art 157 TFEU) can be argued to the above events and critically assess whether each could be successful in actions against the company for sex discrimination

QUESTION 2

Pueblo is a Spanish farmer of sheep and dairy cattle. There was an outbreak of sheep rot in some EU member states, although Pueblo’s farm was not affected. As a result of this disease, trade in live sheep was restricted in the EU although an all clear was recently announced. When Pueblo attempted to import some live sheep into France the French authorities required him to pay for a health inspection.

Pueblo exported milk to the UK. At the port of arrival he was required to pay a fee for storage and checking. He then paid a further amount for onward transportation.

Pueblo’s farm also produces different types of cheese. He imports some high quality cheese to Germany. The German authorities levy a 20% tax rate on Pueblo’s cheeses compared to a 10% tax on equivalent German cheeses. The authorities argue that this is justified as German cheeses are produced by environmentally friendly methods.

Pueblo discovered that alternatives to cheese (such as cold meat and food spreads) have only a 5% tax levied on them in Germany. Pueblo is arguing that this is affecting the sales of his cheeses in Germany.

Critically discuss and advise Pueblo as to how the law on the free movement of goods (as applied by Articles 30 and 110 TFEU) can be argued to the various payments and taxes levied in the above scenario.

QUESTION 3

Critically analyse the extent to which conduct by undertakings that may affect competition is regulated by Article 101 TFEU.

Your answer should include specific case examples and evidence of background reading.

QUESTION 4

Brewmaster plc is a company based in the UK that produces beers and soft drinks. It has recently experienced the following issues in relation to trading its products within the EU:

(a) Belgium requires that beers sold within the country comply with Belgian labelling rules. All Belgian beers comply with this, but Brewmaster’s beers do not. Brewmaster argue that this is unfair as it would be too costly to label their beers differently for Belgium. Belgium also requires that the labelling states a health warning. Brewmaster’s beers do not include this. As a result of these requirements Brewmaster are prevented from selling their beers in Belgium.

(b) Bewmaster would like to sell its soft drinks in Germany. The German authorities state that Bremaster’s soft drinks contain additives which are prohibited in Germany which has banned all imports that contain the additives. Bewmaster argue that their soft drinks are accepted elsewhere in the EU and therefore should be accepted in Germany.

(c) Recently, due to high alcohol consumption in Sweden the Swedish authorities have introduced a law that restricts the advertising of alcoholic drinks. This has made it more difficult for Brewmaster to promote their beers in Sweden causing them to lose market share in favour of national brewers.

Critically discuss how EU law on the free movement of goods (as applied by Articles 34 and 36 TFEU and relevant case law) can be applied to the above events and advise Brewmaster on whether the restrictions they have encountered are likely to be in breach of EU Law.
SOURCES / READING LIST

1 Steiner & Woods, “EU Law”, 12th Edition, 2014, chapters (check contents).

2 Craig & De Burca,”EC Law: Text,Cases,& Materials”,6th edition, 2015, (check contents).

3 Wyatt & Dashwood,”European Community Law”,chapters (check contents).

4 Weatherill,S,”Cases and Materials on EU Law”, 11th edition 2014, chapters (check contents).

5 A Kaczorowska, “European Union Law”, 1st Edition 2009, Cavendish

6 Ward “A Critical Introduction to European Law”,3rd Edition,2009,Cambridge.

7 Green,Hartley and Usher,”The Legal Foundations of the Single
European Market”.

8 Mathijsen,”A Guide to European Union Law”,Part Two,chapters 1,6,7,8.
RECENT JOURNAL ARTICLES
Please note: The following ELR and CMLR journal articles can be accessed through the Library Search option. Type ”European Law Review” or “Common Market Law Review” into the box, click on the relevant search result and then log in through the resource (eg Westlaw) to access the article.

Journal articles are also available in paper format in the library (Regent Campus Library, Little Tichfield Street).

1 Ioannis Lianos, “In Memoriam Keck: the reformation of the EU law on the free movement of goods”
(European Law Review 2015, 40(2), 225-248)

2 Peter Oliver, “Of Trailers and Jet Skis: Is the Case Law on Article 34 TFEU Hurtling in a New Direction”? (Fordham International Law Journal, Volume 33, Issue 5 2011)
3 Graham C, “Methods for determining whether an agreement restricts competition: comment on Allianz Hungaria”
(European. Law. Review 2013, 38(4), 542-551)
4 Hojnik, J, “Free Movement of Goods in a Labyrinth: Can Buy Irish survive the crisis?”
(Common Market Law Review 49: 291–326, 2012)

5 Krenn, C, “A Missing piece in the Horizontal Effect “Jigsaw”:
Horizontal Direct Effect and The Free Movement of Goods”
(Common Market Law Review 49: 177–216, 2012).

6 Koldinská K, “Case law of the European Court of Justice on sex discrimination 2006-2011”
(Common Market Law Review 48: 1599-1638, 2011)

7 Bailey D, “Restrictions of Competition by object under Article 101 TFEU”
(Common Market Law Review 49: 559-600, 2012)

8 Spaventa E, “Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the rulings in Commission v Italy and Mickelsson and Roos”
(European Law Review 2009)

9 Lianos I, “Collusion in vertical relations under Article 81 EC”
(Common Market Law Review 45: 1027-1077, 2008)

10 Brouwer, O, Goyder J, Mes D, “Developments in EC competition law in 2007: An overview”
(Common Market Law Review 45: 1167-1205, 2008)

11 Wilsher D, “Does Keck discrimination make any sense? An assessment of the non-discrimination principle within the European Single Market.”
(European Law Review 2008, 33(1), 3-22)

OLDER JOURNAL ARTICLES

1 DEVELOPMENTS IN EC COMPETITION LAW IN 2005: AN OVERVIEW
SVEN B. VOLCKER
Common Market Law Review; Oct 2006, Vol.43: p1409-1446.

2 DEVELOPMENTS IN EC COMPETITION LAW IN 2004: AN OVERVIEW
SVEN B. VOLCKER
Common Market Law Review; Dec 2005, Vol.42: p1691-1736.

3 Ellis E,”Recent Developments in European Community Sex Equality Law:
(Common Market Law Review,April 1998,pages 379-408).*

4 Whiteford E,”Lost in the mists of time: The ECJ and occupational pensions”:
(Common Market Law Review,1995,pages 801-840).*

5 Rivas J, & Stroud,F, “Developments in EC competition law in 2001: An overview”.
(Common Market Law Review, October 2002,pages 1101-1145).

6 Monti G, “Article 81 EC and public policy”
(Common Market Law Review, October 2002,pages 1057-1099).

7 Koutrakos P,”On groceries,alcohol and olive oil: more on the free movement of goods after Keck”. (European Law Review, August 2001,pages 391-407).*

8 Mortelmans K,”Towards convergence in the application of the rules on free movement and competition?”
(Common Market Law Review,June 2001,pages 613-649).

9 Monti G,”The scope of collective dominance under Article 82 EC”.
(Common Market Law Review,February 2001,pages 131-157.*

10 Whish R,”Regulation 2790/99: The Commission’s “new style” block exemption for vertical agreements”.
(Common Market Law Review,August 2000,pages 887-924).
INSTRUCTIONS

LENGTH: 2,400 words maximum (1,200 words for each question answered plus or minus 10%).

Sources: A bibliography must be given at the end and any other sources acknowledged. References should be given at the bottom of each page as footnotes.
Plagiarism (ie. direct copying from books etc. or representing other writers’ work as your own) will result in a FAIL. All sources used must be properly acknowledged.